Talk:Girl Meets Belief/@comment-24055022-20151115031738/@comment-26999065-20151115051252
There's a huge difference between various people's "interpretations" of Holy Scripture when it comes to homosexuality. Firstly, any old testaments stuff should be outright excluded, if you're a Christian, as the belief is Jesus and his teachings came to supersede the old rules. If not, then wearing clothing of mixed fabrics would be as big a sin as homosexuality, and all sorts of other old testament things would be as bad, but they aren't believed to be bad today at all - and so, too, could/should what the old testament says about homosexuality be essentially ignored. Otherwise, one isn't against homosexuality because it says to be in the Bible, but because one is selectively choosing to be more against that sin but not other things that are also prohibited in the Bible or described as sinful. Curious choice, then. Where is it "REALLY" coming from then? Paul, in the New Testament, only mentions the practice of homosexuality as non-consensual acts of heterosexual men upon other men, like boys and male slaves. The entire concept of a homosexual as a person who is always attracted to a member of the same gender didn't even exist 2000 years ago, so he couldn't be using the modern understanding of the term homosexual any more than he could use terms like "jet plane" or "cell phone" or "ipod." These things, these words, didn't exist in Paul's time. His problem wasn't with what would be considered a homosexual orientation, but with the non-consensual act of a man upon a male slave or boy - essentially what we'd call homosexual rape, and he'd have that problem with anyone who did that stuff, whether they were heterosexual or homosexual. In short, it's not as clear as some people think that the New Testament is against modern homosexuality, or what we know about it today, after 2000 years of learning more about human beings. Therefore, people who are against homosexuality because of what it says in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, appear to really be against it, first, since they have a personal problem with it, rather than a requirement to obey the Bible, and are just using the Bible to justify something they want to be true. Otherwise, any sin would be as bad - not just that one - but it's not, apparently. Only that one where a homosexual isn't really making a choice of who they are attracted to. Why is that a bigger sin and more unforgivable than the sins of lying, even a white lie, or stealing, even a penny, or other sins? Just seems some people are homophobic and more than willing to pick on that act, as a sin, but more than willing to forgive the other sins they are more willing to commit themselves since they aren't homosexual themselves. Convenient choice, then, to make that one sin they'd never do themselves worse than the ones they do regularly, or at least occassionally. Myself, I'm not gay, nor particularly religious, but I can see the hypocrisy of many who practice intolerance toward homosexuality in the name of God as they cherry pick their way through the Bible and hammer gay people with passages out of context and completely ignore others - particularly the teachings of loving one's neighbor as they love themselves. So what are you saying? You can hate homosexuals, but you think it unwise to share this information with others? Or maybe you should not hate them at all, honestly love them as your love yourself, and perhaps understand and interpret the Bible differently, now that you have 2000 more years of education to draw upon than Paul or the even older authors ever had? Opps - guess just discussing this is . . . dangerous . . . to your religious beliefs, huh? I think Cory's great, and such a wonderful teacher, but his explanation in this episode, IMO, was poorly crafted, and no where near the "proof" of God's exiastence that Farkle asked for. Just sayin'.